Californians in the November election will decide the fate of 17 propositions — the most on the ballot since 2000.

PROPOSITION 51: SCHOOL BONDS

Background: School districts pay for building new schools and updating older ones with a mix of local and state money, generally financed through bonds. It’s been a decade since California voters approved a bond measure allowing the state to borrow money for school construction. Now the state’s existing stash of school construction money is almost gone, yet local school districts report a backlog of construction projects that will cost billions to complete.

What would it do?
Proposition 51 authorizes $9 billion in bonds to build new schools and modernize existing ones. Most of the money would be for K-12 schools, with about $2 billion for community colleges.

Related Articles

What would it cost?
Borrowing the $9 billion would cost the state an extra $8.6 billion in interest. The state would likely pay off the debt over 35 years, at a cost of about $500 million a year.

Why is it on the ballot?
Usually school bonds land on the ballot because the Legislature puts them there. That hasn’t happened in recent years, so home builders, developers and school construction companies got together to put this measure on the ballot on their own.

What supporters say
California’s aging campuses need safety repairs and tech upgrades, while growing neighborhoods want to build new schools. The bonds will provide students a better learning environment, without directly raising taxes.

What opponents say
Proposition 51 benefits suburban homebuilders without doing much to help schools in low-income communities. Bonds are expensive — costing almost as much in interest as the amount borrowed — and put the state further in debt.

Show me the money
Homebuilders, developers and construction industry groups are the main financial backers for Proposition 51. No contributions to oppose the initiative have been reported.

Top donors to yes campaign:• Coalition for Adequate School Housing
• Building Industry Assn.
• Community College Facility Coalition
Total raised: $12.2 million

Top donors to no campaign: None
Total raised: $0

PROPOSITION 52: HOSPITAL FEES

Background: Proposition 52 would extend the current fees hospitals pay to receive more matching Medi-Cal funds from the federal government. It would also make it harder for the state Legislature to divert the fees to other state programs.

What would it cost the government?
The measure’s fiscal impact is unclear because we don’t know if the Legislature would have extended the existing hospital fee if Prop. 52 were not on the ballot. If lawmakers had declined to extend the fee, Prop. 52 would have saved the state roughly $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Why is it on the ballot?
The California Hospital Association is sponsoring Proposition 52 in a bid to stabilize and protect state funding that hospitals receive for treating low-income patients. Although the Legislature established the hospital fee in 2009 as a means to reimburse hospitals, lawmakers have diverted some of the money into the state’s general fund. Prop. 52 is one of three measures on the ballot that will boost Medi-Cal funding.

What supporters say
It will ensure California hospitals can continue to recover some of the money they spend to provide services to low-income patients, providing a stable revenue stream and drawing an estimated $3 billion in federal matching funds.

Supporters:• California Hospital Association
• Dignity Health

What opponents say
It will divert millions of dollars away from patients and into a health care bureaucracy with no oversight, no accountability and no guarantee it is spent on health care.

Opponents:• Service Employees International Union — United Healthcare Workers West

Show me the money
Hospitals and health care systems are behind the Prop. 52 yes campaign, while health care labor unions have raised money against the measure.

Top donors to no campaign:
• SEIU – United Healthcare Workers West (but has withdrawn financial support)
Total raised: $14.6 million*

PROPOSITION 53: REVENUE BONDS

Background: Gov. Jerry Brown has championed two major infrastructure projects: a high-speed rail system to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, and a pair of massive tunnels in the Delta to move water from the northern to the southern end of the state. The projects would bring jobs to inland California, but have stirred controversy among farmers and environmentalists. Many fiscal conservatives object because the projects would likely rely on borrowing billions of dollars, adding to the state’s debt load, which is already more than $300 billion.

What would it do?
Proposition 53 would require voter approval before any revenue bond over $2 billion can be issued by the state for state-managed projects. Few projects require bonds of that amount, but the threshold would likely complicate both of Brown’s priority infrastructure projects by requiring a public vote.

What would it cost the government?
Analysts couldn’t determine the fiscal impact of this measure because it depends on how voters and governments respond. It could have no impact if voters approve bonds and a project proceeds as planned. It could save money if voters reject bonds and the government instead uses existing infrastructure or a less expensive financing mechanism. It could cost money if the government plans several smaller projects to avoid the $2 billion threshold or finances the large project with higher-interest loans.

Why is it on the ballot?
Wealthy Stockton farmer Dean Cortopassi, who opposes the Delta tunnels project, put Proposition 53 on the ballot.

What supporters say
It would give voters a say in major infrastructure projects and could limit growth of the state’s debt load. Government debt will burden future generations, who could see reduced services or increased taxes to pay it off.

What opponents say
It could delay or block more public works projects than anticipated, like water storage or bridge repairs. By requiring a statewide vote, it could allow voters in faraway regions to shoot down a project supported by those in the community. The type of bonds at issue in this measure — revenue bonds — are paid back by users of the project that’s built, not by taxpayers at large.

PROPOSITION 54: LAST-MINUTE LAWMAKING

Background: Most bills winding through the Legislature follow a months-long process with multiple votes by lawmakers and many opportunities for the public to give input. But not always. The Democratic majority in the Legislature can waive the normal rules and jam bills through at the last minute with little public scrutiny. It’s not uncommon for lawmakers and lobbyists to write brand-new bills in the session’s final days and push them to a vote before the public has much chance to weigh in.

What would it do?
Proposition 54 tries to put a stop to last-minute lawmaking by requiring the Legislature to publish a bill in print and online for at least 72 hours before a vote on the bill. (The measure makes exceptions if there’s a public emergency.) It also would require the Legislature to record on video all its public sessions and make video archives available online.

What would it cost the government?
Roughly $1 million to $2 million initially for equipment, plus about $1 million annually for making the videos and storing them online.

Why is it on the ballot?
Charles Munger Jr., a prominent Republican donor who lives in Palo Alto, paid to put this measure on the ballot.

What supporters say
It would make government more transparent by giving the public time to review bills before they become laws.

Top donors to yes campaign:
• Charles Munger Jr.
Total raised: $10.8 million

Top donors to no campaign:

Total raised: $27,279

PROPOSITION 55: MILLIONAIRES TAX

Background: Californians in 2012 voted to increase taxes on the state’s wealthiest earners, seeking to replenish education funding accounts depleted during the economic downturn. Four years later, the economy is recovering and the tax increase is slated to end after 2018. Education and health care advocates argue Californians can’t afford to lose the revenue from the high-earner income tax.

What would it do?
Proposition 55 would extend the 2012 voter-approved tax increase on high-income earners for 12 years, to 2030. The tax applies to earnings over $250,000 a year for individuals, or over $500,000 for couples. Most of the revenue would continue to go to K-12 education, with the remaining set aside for community colleges and low-income health care programs.

What would it cost state government?
Nothing; Proposition 55 would reap billions for the state. The state could see increased revenue ranging from $4 billion to $9 billion a year from 2019 through 2030, depending on the economy and the stock market.

Why is it on the ballot?
The California Teachers Association and the California Hospital Association are bankrolling Proposition 55, and their constituencies stand to benefit from it passing. Revenue from this income tax is targeted for public schools and health care for low-income children. Those programs would likely see cuts if the 2012 tax increases expire.

What supporters say
Proposition 55 maintains taxes on the wealthiest Californians and would prevent billions of dollars in cuts to public education needed to hire teachers and reduce class sizes. Funding for community colleges would make more classes available and keep tuition rates stable while low-income children would see improved access to health care.

What opponents say
This measure is a broken promise to taxpayers who voted in 2012 for a temporary tax. Extending the tax by another 12 years is a power grab by labor unions that will send the state’s economy into a tailspin, forcing more businesses and jobs to leave California.

Top donors to no campaign: Martin Schwartz, Franklin Antonio and Paul Wick.

Total raised: $3,000

PROPOSITION 56: TOBACCO TAX

Background: Tobacco is often the target of politicians seeking money for state programs, with mixed success across the country. In California, voters have rejected multiple ballot box attempts over the years to raise taxes on cigarettes, and the state is among those with the lowest taxes on tobacco. The growing popularity of e-cigarettes and vapor products adds a new dynamic to the debate.

What would it do?
Proposition 56 would add a $2 tax to cigarettes, electronic cigarettes containing nicotine, and other tobacco products to primarily increase funding for existing health care programs.

What would it cost the government?
Nothing; this measure would add revenue to the state budget. It would provide an estimated $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017-18, with potentially lower revenues in future years as more people quit smoking.

Why is it on the ballot?
Proposition 56 is sponsored by a coalition of health care groups that stand to see a boost in Medi-Cal funding if it passes. The measure is one of three on the November ballot that would increase Medi-Cal funding, which health care advocates say has yet to recover from cuts the Legislature made during the recession.

What supporters say
Proposition 56 is a user fee paid only by smokers to help pay for health care, cancer treatment, smoking prevention, and research to cure cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Taxing tobacco saves lives with a proven reduction in youth smoking. California’s current tax on cigarettes — 87 cents per pack — is low compared to most states.

What opponents say
This measure is a tax grab by insurance companies, labor unions and hospitals, with just a fraction of the money set aside for smoking prevention. More pressing problems like the drought, education, road repairs and violent crime should benefit from any tax increases.

Show me the money
Major tobacco companies are spending heavily against Proposition 56, while health care organizations and labor unions are supporting the measure.

Top donors to yes campaign:
• Calif. Assn. of Hospitals and Health Systems
• Calif. State Council of Service Employees
• Tom Steyer
Total raised: $29.8 million

Top donors to no campaign:
• Philip Morris
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
• ITG Brands
Total raised: $66.3 million

PROPOSITION 57: CRIMINAL SENTENCING

Background: Four decades ago, Gov. Jerry Brown embraced tough-on-crime laws that filled the state’s prisons. The overcrowding led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the state must reduce its prison population and improve medical care to inmates. California has moved lower-level felons from prison to county jails, and voters approved measures to limit the state’s three-strikes sentencing law and reduce some felonies to misdemeanors. However, prison overcrowding and high costs continue to plague California.

What would it do?
Proposition 57 would increase the number of nonviolent inmates eligible for parole consideration and enable inmates to earn credits for good behavior. It also lets judges decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult, likely resulting in fewer young offenders being placed in the adult system.

What would it cost the government?
Reductions in prison population would lead to a savings for state government likely in the tens of millions of dollars each year, according to the state legislative analyst. Meanwhile, counties might incur a cost of a few million dollars a year.

Why is it on the ballot?
Gov. Jerry Brown put Proposition 57 on the ballot, arguing that the tough sentencing laws he once embraced have had unintended consequences that overburdened the criminal justice system. The measure is a piece of his bigger plan to reduce the prison population and save the state money.

What supporters say
Proposition 57 is a long-term solution that stops wasting costly prison space on nonviolent offenders who can be rehabilitated, while keeping dangerous criminals behind bars. It gives judges — instead of prosecutors — the power to decide whether a minor should be tried as an adult, which will improve juvenile justice by reducing racial bias and the number of minors sent through adult courts.

What opponents say
Proposition 57 is a deceptive measure that could endanger public safety with the early release of inmates convicted of violent crimes such as rape and assault with a deadly weapon. Though the initiative says it only applies to “nonviolent” offenders, the term is broadly defined under California law and applies to certain rapes and assaults.

Show me the moneyGov. Jerry Brown spent much of his leftover gubernatorial campaign funds on Proposition 57. Prosecutors are putting up money to fight it.

Top donors to no campaign:
• Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys
Total raised: $597,826

PROPOSITION 58: BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Background: Swept up by anti-immigrant politics nearly 20 years ago, California voters approved an initiative requiring that school children be taught almost exclusively in English. The measure triggered anger in some immigrant communities, where it was viewed as an attack on multiculturalism. Now that the children of immigrants have assumed significant power in the state Capitol, they are calling on Californians to re-examine the decision that reduced bilingual education in public schools.

What would it do?
Proposition 58 would remove restrictions voters put in place in 1998 with Proposition 227. It would allow public schools to decide how to teach English learners – choosing among English-only, bilingual, or other types of programs. It would also open the door for native English speakers to learn a second language.

What would it cost the government?
The state legislative analyst found no notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.

Why is it on the ballot?
The Legislature put Proposition. 58 on the ballot; state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, is spearheading the initiative.

What supporters say
Proposition 58 removes decades-old barriers to student learning and allows educators to use a variety of teaching methods to help the approximately one-fifth of California students who are not native English speakers. Schools also could more easily provide programs for native English speakers in a second language, readying them for the global economy.

What opponents say
The current system is working, with more California Latinos gaining admission to college and universities. Proposition 58 will force children back into Spanish-only instruction, which will hinder their ability to quickly learn English and prosper as adults.

Opponents:
• State Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine)
• Ron Unz, chairman of English for the Children
• Kenneth A. Noonan, former superintendent of Oceanside Unified School District

Show me the money
State Sen. Ricardo Lara, backed by the teachers’ union, is spearheading Prop. 58. Opponents have yet to raise any money.

Top donors to yes campaign:
• Calif. Teachers Assn.
• Assn. of Calif. School Administrators
Total amount raised: $4.2 million

Top donors to no campaign:
None

Total raised: $0

PROPOSITION 59: CAMPAIGN SPENDING

Background: The U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United has become a political flashpoint for Americans turned off by the billions of dollars spent to sway elections. The 2010 ruling allowed unions and corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. It paved the way for the prevalence of “super PACs,” groups that spend huge sums on ads supporting or opposing candidates — and do so legally, so long as the politicians have no direct involvement in their efforts.

What would it do?
Not much, in the short term at least. Proposition 59 is an advisory measure — it’s an opportunity for Californians to give their opinion but it doesn’t directly change any laws. The measure asks if voters want California’s elected officials to take steps to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United. Amending the Constitution is a lengthy process that generally requires, among other things, support from at least 38 states nationwide.

What would it cost state government?
Nothing.

Why is it on the ballot?
The Legislature’s Democratic majority placed Proposition 59 on the ballot after lobbying by groups that oppose both Citizens United and the prevalence of money in politics. It was originally supposed to be on the ballot in 2014, but was delayed by a lawsuit challenging whether lawmakers can ask voters to weigh in on nonbinding measures. The California Supreme Court ruled that advisory questions are permissible.

What supporters say
As one piece of a passionate nationwide movement, this measure takes a step toward undercutting big-money politics. Similar measures have already passed in Montana and Colorado, and voters in the state of Washington also face one in November. Even if these nonbinding measures don’t lead to a Constitutional amendment, approval of Proposition 59 could influence Supreme Court justices in the future if they reconsidered Citizens United.

What opponents say
The measure doesn’t actually do anything but clog the ballot and potentially confuse voters. Citizens United isn’t the only ruling that governs campaign finance issues — and overturning it would still allow a lot of money to gush through the political system, including campaign spending by wealthy individuals, and corporate and union donations directly to politicians.

Show me the money
NextGen, a political organization formed by billionaire Democratic activist Tom Steyer, is the primary funder behind Proposition 59. Opponents are not raising any money.

Top donor to yes campaign:
NextGen Climate

Total raised: $299,598

Top donors to no campaign:
None

Total raised: $0

PROPOSITION 60: PORN CONDOMS

Background: This is the rare ballot measure that requires you to think about sex. Because here in California — home to a $9 billion pornography industry — that most personal of acts is also a jobs issue and a public health concern. Four years ago, Los Angeles County voters approved a measure requiring adult film performers to use condoms. The longtime AIDS activist who pushed that measure has taken his fight statewide with Proposition 60.

What would it do?
Proposition 60 would require porn actors to use condoms when filming intercourse. It would create a system for people to make complaints and file lawsuits if they see a sex scene that does not include a condom. It would require that adult film producers pay for performers’ vaccinations, testing and medical exams related to sexual health.

What would it cost state government?
Additional regulations on adult film production would cost more than $1 million annually. In addition, state and local tax revenue would probably drop by several million dollars a year if productions move out of state or go underground to evade the condom mandate.

Why is it on the ballot?
The Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation put Proposition 60 on the ballot after failing to persuade the Legislature to pass a statewide condom requirement

What supporters say
State law already requires adult performers to use condoms on the job, but they are exposed to disease because the provision is rarely enforced. Proposition 60 strengthens existing law by adding new enforcement mechanisms that protect workers in the porn industry.

What opponents say
Viewers don’t want to watch sex involving condoms, so porn producers will leave California or go underground if this measure passes. The state’s adult film industry already minimizes disease transmission by frequently testing performers. This measure would lead to new lawsuits.

Show me the money
Money for Prop. 60 comes exclusively from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, while adult film companies have spent against the measure.

Top donors to yes campaign:
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Total raised: $4.6 million

Top donors to no campaign:
• Wicked Pictures
• John Stagliano and affiliated production companies
Total raised: $452,547

PROPOSITION 61: DRUG PRICES

Background: Many Americans are angry about rising pharmaceutical prices and politicians have taken notice. Presidential candidates this year debated how to contain costs, and California lawmakers proposed fixes that never passed out of the statehouse. Drug prices are a big deal not only for consumers who are forced to pay more for prescriptions, but also for the state government, which spends billions on medication for public employees, retirees, prisoners and other people on public health plans.

What would it do?
Proposition 61 would cap the amount the state pays for prescription drugs — generally prohibiting the state from paying any more for drugs than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which pays the lowest prices in the nation.

What would it cost?
Proposition 61 could save the state some money, but it’s hard to say for certain. If drug makers responded to the measure by raising prices for the Department of Veterans Affairs, that would negate any potential savings to the state. Because the drug market reaction is unpredictable, the state’s legislative analysts concluded that the fiscal impact is unknown.

Why is it on the ballot?
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation in Los Angeles — which runs pharmacies and health clinics around the world — paid to put Proposition 61 on the ballot.

What supporters say
Proposition 61 will rein in soaring drug prices and fights back against pharmaceutical companies that reap profit from people’s illnesses.

What opponents say
It would limit prices only for people in certain government health plans, but could make medication more expensive for others — especially veterans — if drug companies hike prices to make up the difference.

PROPOSITIONS 62 AND 66: DEATH PENALTY

Background: Whether for or against the death penalty, both sides agree the criminal justice system isn’t working. Since the 1978 reinstatement of the death penalty in California, 15 of the 930 individuals who received a death sentence have been executed. Another 104 have died prior to being executed, 64 have had sentences reduced by the courts and 747 remain in prison. The numbers illustrate the lengthy time inmates spend both waiting for court-appointed attorneys and for their cases to be heard, as well as an exhaustive appeals process intended to protect the innocent. Meanwhile, California has not carried out an execution since 2006 because of legal issues surrounding the state’s lethal injection procedures.

What would they do?
The dueling campaigns of Propositions 62 and 66 seek to address California’s broken death penalty system — but in two very different ways. Proposition 62 would abolish the death penalty, and all current death row inmates would be resentenced to life in prison without parole. Proposition 66 attempts to reform capital punishment by shortening the time of legal challenges. It would also allow the state to house condemned men outside San Quentin, currently the only prison that has a death row for men.

What would they cost the government?
Proposition 62 would save the state and counties about $150 million a year, with fewer costs related to prisons, murder trials and legal challenges to death sentences, according to the state legislative analyst. Under Proposition 66, the cost to state courts for processing legal challenges to death sentences is unknown. The measure could save tens of millions a year in prison costs.

Why are they on the ballot?
Former “M*A*S*H” actor Mike Farrell authored Proposition 62, and he has amassed celebrity support to abolish what critics describe as a failed system that doesn’t protect the innocent. Former NFL player Kermit Alexander — whose mother, sister and two nephews were murdered by a man now on death row — filed Proposition 66, the competing measure to expedite the death penalty process, and the initiative gained the support of law enforcement. Alexander was among the key critics of a failed 2012 ballot initiative that sought to abolish the death penalty.

If both Propositions 62 and 66 pass, the one with the most votes will prevail.

What death penalty opponents say
Proposition 62 ensures convicted murderers serve a strict life sentence and abolishes a failed and biased death penalty system that has cost the state $5 billion to date. It ensures not a single innocent person would be wrongfully executed.

Proposition 66 will cost taxpayers millions of dollars, add layers of government bureaucracy that will lead to more delay, and increase the risk that California executes an innocent person.

What death penalty supporters say
Abolishing the death penalty under Proposition 62 would allow the most brutal murderers to stay alive on the taxpayer dime. Proposition 62 jeopardizes public safety, denies justice and closure to victims’ families, and rewards the most horrible killers.

Proposition 66 fixes California’s flawed death penalty system and ensures due process protections for those sentenced to death. It promotes justice for murder victims and their families.

PROPOSITION 63: GUN CONTROL

Background: Even though California has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, political will intensified this year to pass even stiffer laws. Motivated in part by the December mass shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead, Democrats in the Legislature advanced several gun control bills, many of which were signed into law. All the while, Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was leading the effort to put Proposition 63 before voters. The newly passed laws overlap with two of the six gun-control policies included in this measure.

What would it do?
The two parts of Proposition 63 that are similar to the newly approved state laws are provisions that would require criminal background checks for people purchasing ammunition and prohibit possession of large-capacity magazines (those holding more than 10 bullets).

Other pieces of Proposition 63 would make new requirements for reporting lost or stolen firearms and ammunition to authorities; prohibit people from possessing firearms if they’re convicted of stealing a firearm; establish new ways for authorities to remove guns from people who are prohibited from owning them; change theft of a gun worth $950 or less from a misdemeanor to a felony; strengthen the national criminal background check system by requiring the state to share information about people who are prohibited from owning firearms.

What would it cost the government?
Tens of millions of dollars a year related to new processes for removing firearms from people who are not allowed to own them because they’ve been convicted of a crime. Millions of dollars annually to regulate ammunition sales and jail those facing stiffer penalties for certain gun crimes.

Why is it on the ballot?
Newsom, who is running for governor in 2018, put forth Proposition 63 after consulting with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

What supporters say
Something must be done about gun violence, which injures or kills more than 300 Americans each day. Even in California’s Democratic-controlled statehouse, the gun lobby has successfully blocked efforts to pass some policies aimed at keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands. This initiative takes those questions directly to voters.

What opponents say
Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law, so putting more restrictions on guns and ammunition won’t stop them — it will just burden law-abiding gun owners. This measure is a way for Newsom to boost his image before running for governor in two years.

Top donors to no campaign:
National Rifle Assn.
California Rifle & Pistol Assn.
Total raised: $742,776

PROPOSITION 64: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

Background: The push for marijuana legalization is on the ballot in at least nine states this November, with California’s Proposition 64 the most watched. Although four other states previously have legalized recreational pot, a vote by the nation’s most populous state is likely to put pressure on Congress and the federal government to lessen the federal restrictions on marijuana.

What would it do?
Proposition 64 would allow people 21 and older to grow up to six pot plants at home, possess up to an ounce of marijuana and use it for recreational purposes. It would allow the state, as well as cities and counties, to regulate and tax the growing and sale of non-medical marijuana.

What would it cost the government?
It all depends on how state and local governments choose to regulate and tax marijuana, whether the federal government enforces federal marijuana laws, and the price and use of marijuana. The state’s legislative analyst concluded that taxes generated could eventually reach more than $1 billion a year. Local and state governments also could save tens of millions of dollars a year in jail costs because marijuana use would no longer be a state crime.

Why is it on the ballot?
Legalization advocates are trying again after California voters shot down their last initiative to sanction recreational marijuana in 2010. This time they’ve got an influx of cash from technology moguls and political heft from Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

What supporters say
It would bring the state’s booming and unregulated recreational marijuana market under the rule of law, protecting consumers and the environment. It is a recognition that decades of prohibition and aggressive enforcement of criminal laws hasn’t worked.

What opponents say
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Proposition 64 would lead to an increase in marijuana smoking, causing more cases of cancer, heart attacks, strokes and other health issues. Children will be exposed to marijuana advertising and the roads will be less safe.

Show me the money
Former Facebook president Sean Parker has provided major backing for Proposition 64. A significant chunk of opponents’ money comes from Julie Schauer, a retired art professor on the East Coast.

Propositions 65 & 67: Plastic bags

Background: How you carry your groceries home from the store may seem like a trivial subject, but it’s the focus of two rival measures on the California ballot that pit environmentalists against the plastic industry. More than 150 California communities have banned single-use plastic shopping bags, blaming them for a host of problems — from choking wildlife to damaging municipal waste systems. But that’s led to varying shopping bag policies around the state, which causes problems for large retailers. State lawmakers in 2014 passed a bill to put the same rules in place across California: banning thin plastic grocery bags and charging shoppers a dime for paper or heavy-duty plastic. The goal is to encourage Californians to bring reusable bags when they shop. But the plastic industry is putting up a fight.

What would they do?
Proposition 67 supports the 2014 ban signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown and authorizes retailers to charge shoppers 10 cents for other carryout bags — a fee the stores get to keep. Proposition 65 would redirect the bag fee money to an environmental fund administered by the state Wildlife Conservation Board.

If both measures pass, Proposition 65 would only be enacted if it receives more votes than Proposition 67. If voters reject Proposition 67, then Proposition 65 does not apply.

What would they cost the government?
A plastic bag ban wouldn’t mean much financially for state and local governments, the state legislative analyst found. If Proposition 65 passes, tens of millions of dollars a year could flow into environmental programs.

Why are they on the ballot?
Both were placed on the ballot by plastic bag manufacturers. After Brown signed the plastic bag ban two years ago, the plastics industry obtained enough signatures to put Proposition 67 on the ballot. The same companies also crafted Proposition 65 to take money generated by the bag fee away from retailers and move it instead into an environmental fund.

What the plastic industry says
Proposition 67 unfairly targets plastic, an inexpensive, versatile material that is convenient for shoppers. Banning plastic bags will do little to help the environment.

Proposition 65 puts money from shopping bag fees into projects that benefit the environment rather than corporate grocery chain profits.

BERKELEY — The leader of an “alt-right” group based in Vancouver, Washington, is set for a 2 p.m. rally at Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley despite the cancellation of Free Speech Week events that were planned by a conservative student group and political provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Joey Gibson, the self-styled leader of Patriot Prayer, said in a video he posted...

The kingdom, which announced the change on Tuesday, was the only the country in the world to bar women from driving and for years had garnered negative publicity internationally for detaining women who defied the ban.

Last year’s was the first presidential election in which the state’s new voter ID law was in effect. Given the close margin, and given that such laws tend to disenfranchise voters who tend to prefer Democratic candidates more heavily, questions have been raised about the extent to which the new restrictions might have helped Trump’s victory.